The Washington Post decided not to endorse a U.S. presidential candidate in next week’s election. Based on the reaction of some of its loyal readers and faithful followers, you could have easily mistaken it for the end of civilization as we know it.
In reality, the newspaper’s decision was perfectly fine.
“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” publisher and chief executive officer William Lewis on Oct. 25. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” he continued, noting that “we recognize … this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable.”
Lewis ultimately took a different tack. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions – whom to vote for as the next president.”
The closing paragraphs are also worth highlighting.
“Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds,” Lewis wrote. “Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be.”
This seems like a fairly balanced explanation. So, what caused the overreaction to the Post’s decision not to endorse either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?
Pertinent details were revealed by the Post in an Oct. 25 written by two staff reporters, Manuel Roig-Franzia and Laura Wagner. “An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two people who were briefed on the sequence of events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly,” they noted. More to the point, “the decision to no longer publish presidential endorsements was made by The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to four people who were briefed on the decision.”
Aye, there’s the rub.
The largely liberal audience of this traditionally liberal newspaper was furious that an endorsement of Harris, a liberal Democrat, was scrubbed. More than 20 (mostly liberal) Post columnists, including Karen Attiah, Max Boot, E.J. Dionne Jr., Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank and Eugene Robinson, a piece that called the decision a “terrible mistake.” There were also some conservatives opposed to Trump who were angry. One of them, Robert Kagan, an editor-at-large at the Post, from the paper.
Their collective outrage was both juvenile and preposterous. As someone who has written columns since 1996, as well as editorials for two publications, I know this world quite well – and they’re not living in reality.
Â鶹´«Ã½ owners like Bezos have every right to get directly involved in the decision-making process of a political endorsement like the presidency. The reason for his decision, which former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron was related to fear of retaliation by Trump, is both unproven and immaterial. It may be frustrating to watch this unfold in-person or from the outside, but there’s nothing you can do to stop them.
Two additional points. While Bezos has donated a lot of money to Democratic political candidates, it’s widely he’s a libertarian. Maybe he finally got fed up with the Democratic Party lurching further to the left. Also, Bezos isn’t the only newspaper owner who killed a presidential endorsement. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, did the a few days earlier. His daughter, Nika, the New York Times it had to do with Harris’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Whether you agree or disagree with Soon-Shiong, he had as much right as Bezos to make this decision.
Â鶹´«Ã½s also have the freedom to endorse or not endorse a presidential candidate. In the past, many publications chose a position of political neutrality. The Post used to be one of them. Between 1877 (when the newspaper was founded) and 1976, it only endorsed one presidential candidate: General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, in 1952. “In the light of hindsight, we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling,” the Post’s editorial board in 1960. “But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”
After nearly a century, this policy abruptly changed. The Washington Post endorsed nearly every Democratic presidential candidate over 12 election cycles. The only exception was Michael Dukakis in 1988. As it happens, they didn’t endorse his Republican opponent, George H.W. Bush, either.
If the Post has decided to move the needle back toward political neutrality, so be it. This isn’t a rejection of democracy, abuse of power, error in judgment, or even a victory for Trump, as some have suggested. Â鶹´«Ã½ editorial endorsements are simply becoming less influential, less impactful and, in the case of a growing number of publications, less as the years go by.
Our civilization will find a way to survive newspapers like the Washington Post making reasonable and rational decisions to stop endorsing presidential candidates. Even if liberal snowflakes and conservative NeverTrumpers can’t bring themselves to accept this new reality.
Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.
©
